Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch


Johannes Weissmann
 

Hi!

before coming up with loads of questions, I thought I'd introduce myself on this mailing list as a new member. I am a glider pilot and have been carrying around the dream of building my own aircraft since my childhood. At my local airfield, there were two RV-4 and ever since I wanted to build one. Years pass and the RV-4 dream turns into RV-7 to have more fun flying with wife and kids. When things got more serious and I started investigating different options, things got even more complex...

Long story short, I went through all aircraft designs I could find, found the Quickie and sort of fell in love with it. It fitted just to well into my desired profile to be ignored and started considering it seriously. It mainly attracts me because it fits my mission well. Range, speed and cost are spot on. The only real draw-back compared to an RV is to miss out on all the fun short-fields to visit.

Not that it really matters, but I am based in Europe/Spain; rumors say that there are some builders in Germany working on a Quickie and that there might be one flying in Spain even.


== What do I have in mind?

My plan is to build a Q-200 from scratch; it is not 100% settled yet, but I do seriously consider it. I have seen some kits on sale, but honestly, I would trust my skills to reconstruct the fuselage design more than a 25 year old kit with unknown history and unknown exposure to UV, chemicals and whatnot.

== Why that effort?

I am equally interested, if not more, in building than flying. I don't need an airplane fast, I want a fast plant! That said, I would invest the time to make a proper plug and molds. It has the additional benefit that I might convince two or three friends to also build a Quickie at my airport.

== Open Source?

I really like the way the OpenEZ developed; and open source project in general. I have no commercial interest in that project and would be willing to opensource all the work I do. The big question there is if that entails any legal, i.e. copyright and liability, risks.

If anyone knows something about these problematics that would be great.


== Current status

I have started reconstructing the fuselage from the available drawings and templates in CAD to get a feel for how difficult the design might be and how many unknowns there are.



That's all for now!

--

Johannes Weissmann


Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Johannes,

 

The best place for you to start would be to look at https://www.quickheads.com/ which has the bulk of the material that was developed over the years as part of the Quickie Builders Association. I think you can get a pretty full picture there of what is involved in building. If you want to build with a previously owned kit, I think there are enough ones in good condition, that it would be worth your while to start with one. If it has been stored inside, there is little chance it has "gone bad" and it would greatly speed your effort. If you are a member of Facebook, here is a link to a very well preserved kit for sale there: https://www.facebook.com/groups/54141292178/ , but if it is sold already, there a plenty more available.

 

Once you get educated on what is involved. Many here are available to answer questions and give advice.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Johannes Weissmann
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 4:37 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

Hi!

 

before coming up with loads of questions, I thought I'd introduce myself on this mailing list as a new member. I am a glider pilot and have been carrying around the dream of building my own aircraft since my childhood. At my local airfield, there were two RV-4 and ever since I wanted to build one. Years pass and the RV-4 dream turns into RV-7 to have more fun flying with wife and kids. When things got more serious and I started investigating different options, things got even more complex...

 

Long story short, I went through all aircraft designs I could find, found the Quickie and sort of fell in love with it. It fitted just to well into my desired profile to be ignored and started considering it seriously. It mainly attracts me because it fits my mission well. Range, speed and cost are spot on. The only real draw-back compared to an RV is to miss out on all the fun short-fields to visit.

 

Not that it really matters, but I am based in Europe/Spain; rumors say that there are some builders in Germany working on a Quickie and that there might be one flying in Spain even.

 

 

== What do I have in mind?

 

My plan is to build a Q-200 from scratch; it is not 100% settled yet, but I do seriously consider it. I have seen some kits on sale, but honestly, I would trust my skills to reconstruct the fuselage design more than a 25 year old kit with unknown history and unknown exposure to UV, chemicals and whatnot.

 

== Why that effort?

 

I am equally interested, if not more, in building than flying. I don't need an airplane fast, I want a fast plant! That said, I would invest the time to make a proper plug and molds. It has the additional benefit that I might convince two or three friends to also build a Quickie at my airport.

 

== Open Source?

 

I really like the way the OpenEZ developed; and open source project in general. I have no commercial interest in that project and would be willing to opensource all the work I do. The big question there is if that entails any legal, i.e. copyright and liability, risks.

 

If anyone knows something about these problematics that would be great.

 

 

== Current status

 

I have started reconstructing the fuselage from the available drawings and templates in CAD to get a feel for how difficult the design might be and how many unknowns there are.

 

 

 

That's all for now!

 

--

 

Johannes Weissmann

 

 

 

 

 


Johannes Weissmann
 

Thanks Jay!

I went through that material, I also bought the full package from canardzone.

With the kits, I was thinking that I'd probably could by some pretty decent tools for the shipping costs alone. I assume most kits for sale are from the US.

I will definitely consider it though!

On 01/10/2022 01.03, Jay Scheevel wrote:
Hi Johannes,
The best place for you to start would be to look at https://www.quickheads.com/ which has the bulk of the material that was developed over the years as part of the Quickie Builders Association. I think you can get a pretty full picture there of what is involved in building. If you want to build with a previously owned kit, I think there are enough ones in good condition, that it would be worth your while to start with one. If it has been stored inside, there is little chance it has "gone bad" and it would greatly speed your effort. If you are a member of Facebook, here is a link to a very well preserved kit for sale there: https://www.facebook.com/groups/54141292178/ , but if it is sold already, there a plenty more available.
Once you get educated on what is involved. Many here are available to answer questions and give advice.
Cheers,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Johannes Weissmann
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 4:37 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch
Hi!
before coming up with loads of questions, I thought I'd introduce myself on this mailing list as a new member. I am a glider pilot and have been carrying around the dream of building my own aircraft since my childhood. At my local airfield, there were two RV-4 and ever since I wanted to build one. Years pass and the RV-4 dream turns into RV-7 to have more fun flying with wife and kids. When things got more serious and I started investigating different options, things got even more complex...
Long story short, I went through all aircraft designs I could find, found the Quickie and sort of fell in love with it. It fitted just to well into my desired profile to be ignored and started considering it seriously. It mainly attracts me because it fits my mission well. Range, speed and cost are spot on. The only real draw-back compared to an RV is to miss out on all the fun short-fields to visit.
Not that it really matters, but I am based in Europe/Spain; rumors say that there are some builders in Germany working on a Quickie and that there might be one flying in Spain even.
== What do I have in mind?
My plan is to build a Q-200 from scratch; it is not 100% settled yet, but I do seriously consider it. I have seen some kits on sale, but honestly, I would trust my skills to reconstruct the fuselage design more than a 25 year old kit with unknown history and unknown exposure to UV, chemicals and whatnot.
== Why that effort?
I am equally interested, if not more, in building than flying. I don't need an airplane fast, I want a fast plant! That said, I would invest the time to make a proper plug and molds. It has the additional benefit that I might convince two or three friends to also build a Quickie at my airport.
== Open Source?
I really like the way the OpenEZ developed; and open source project in general. I have no commercial interest in that project and would be willing to opensource all the work I do. The big question there is if that entails any legal, i.e. copyright and liability, risks.
If anyone knows something about these problematics that would be great.
== Current status
I have started reconstructing the fuselage from the available drawings and templates in CAD to get a feel for how difficult the design might be and how many unknowns there are.
That's all for now!
--
Johannes Weissmann
Avenida de Mariano Vicen 27, Piso 2-I | 42003 Soria | Spain
mail: jo@...
fon : +34 615 81 81 40

"The truth, as always, will be far stranger." [Sir Arthur C. Clarke]


Chris Walterson
 

Johannes------------  Check out the original Q1 and the Dragonfly. They can be built from plans alone without pre made parts.

Use the Q200 plans and copy their  procedure. I think someone had built a scratch built Q2, but I can't remember the info.

 Enjoy the journey-----------  Chris  in Canada ---built-----
Dragonfly-- Scratch built Super Quickie-- Seahawker and Q200























--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com


Chris Walterson
 

Johannes------------  One other thing--------  I think Eugene is in Germany and he is building a Q1 from scratch.  He may be helpful in sourcing stuff. Hopefully he will chime in------------ Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com


Jay Scheevel
 

Looks like Johannes is in Spain. Wondering what the limitations on home built aircraft are in Spain. Is that where you intend to build, Johannes?

Cheers,
Jay

On Oct 1, 2022, at 1:03 PM, Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:

 Johannes------------ One other thing-------- I think Eugene is in Germany and he is building a Q1 from scratch. He may be helpful in sourcing stuff. Hopefully he will chime in------------ Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com






Steve Rothert
 

As I recall, the Q200 used the LS-1 canard which required pre-made carbon spars that were only available from Quickie Aircraft. 

Some suggested reading can be found in the March 1984 issue of Sport Aviation.  I think a Q200 is on the cover.

Some other readingis in  October 1981 Sport Aviation, an article from Burt Rutan.

Hope this helps.
Steve


Jay Scheevel
 

Several Q2’s have been built using the GU canard. Originally, the GU was replaced primarily due to the limitations caused by surface contamination reducing lift in rain, and also due to QAC insistence that the GU was not strong enough for use with the larger 0-200 engine. 

The surface contamination lift problem was later solved by some builders by adding vortex generators. By the time this fix was discovered, QAC was selling only LS1 canard-based kits and claimed that the narrower CG range and lesser strength of the GU would make it inadequate for use with the O-200 engine. 

That said, a few Q2’s with GU canards and O-200 engines are flying and appear to be successful, despite not being an engine/airframe combination approved by the original kit manufacturer (QAC).  

Use of vortex generators is a requirement for the Q2’s with GU canards. The advantage of the GU is that it doesn’t require a pre-made carbon fiber tube spar, so can be built from plans alone. 

Cheers,
Jay 

On Oct 1, 2022, at 3:30 PM, Steve Rothert via groups.io <SWROTHERT@...> wrote:

As I recall, the Q200 used the LS-1 canard which required pre-made carbon spars that were only available from Quickie Aircraft. 

Some suggested reading can be found in the March 1984 issue of Sport Aviation.  I think a Q200 is on the cover.

Some other readingis in  October 1981 Sport Aviation, an article from Burt Rutan.

Hope this helps.
Steve


Chris Walterson
 

The LS1 can be made with out the pre made carbon spars. I think " Wadllow" had designed a layup schedule and you may also consider using a modified Dragonfly schedule  that uses a fiberglass C spar with multiply layers of carbon fiber.

 Have fun----------  Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com


Jay Scheevel
 

The Waddelow canard was designed only for flight loads for the Tri-Q2, but I think that the Wieshar (sp?) was designed as a hand laid-up version of the LS1 that will work for the tail dragger. Someone else on this group would know more about that one. I have only seen scans of the documentation. Never seen one in person.

Cheers,
Jay

On Oct 2, 2022, at 6:53 AM, Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:

 The LS1 can be made with out the pre made carbon spars. I think " Wadllow" had designed a layup schedule and you may also consider using a modified Dragonfly schedule that uses a fiberglass C spar with multiply layers of carbon fiber.

Have fun---------- Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com






Sam Hoskins
 

In the Q-list files there are the plans for the Weishauer carbon fiber LS1 canard. This canard was built and successfully taxied. After a ground loop or two on the runway, which has everything to do with proper wheel alignment and pilot focus, they turned it into a Tri-Q and it was flown successfully for quite a while.

I wonder if David Gall might like to take a look at it and see what he thinks about it.

Sam

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022, 7:53 AM Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:
  The LS1 can be made with out the pre made carbon spars. I think "
Wadllow" had designed a layup schedule and you may also consider using a
modified Dragonfly schedule  that uses a fiberglass C spar with multiply
layers of carbon fiber.

  Have fun----------  Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com






Bruce Crain
 

The Waddelow is meant for only TriQs.
Bruce


On Oct 2, 2022, at 10:22 AM, Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:


In the Q-list files there are the plans for the Weishauer carbon fiber LS1 canard. This canard was built and successfully taxied. After a ground loop or two on the runway, which has everything to do with proper wheel alignment and pilot focus, they turned it into a Tri-Q and it was flown successfully for quite a while.

I wonder if David Gall might like to take a look at it and see what he thinks about it.

Sam

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022, 7:53 AM Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:
  The LS1 can be made with out the pre made carbon spars. I think "
Wadllow" had designed a layup schedule and you may also consider using a
modified Dragonfly schedule  that uses a fiberglass C spar with multiply
layers of carbon fiber.

  Have fun----------  Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com






David J. Gall
 
Edited

Regarding the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard I can only say that they were successful. They designed it as a taildragger canard and only converted to tri-gear when they had directional control difficulties as a taildragger, not because of any structural deficiency. The documents in the Files section are all that were published. I would not build from the template file "Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg" (in the Files section) because it has known, measured distortion from the scan process that renders it unacceptable. However, there is enough information in that image and elsewhere that someone could redraw those templates using available NASA data for the airfoil section and the dimensions available on that scanned image. Note that the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard elevators were designed using the then-popular idea (thanks to NASA) that the control surfaces should be thicker than the wing immediately ahead of them; the Weishaar-Doyle elevators are drawn 10% thicker than the wing. The QAC LS-1 canard did not have that feature and seems none the worse off for it. I would suggest that anyone building a Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard eliminate that silliness and just make the elevators the same thickness as the wing ahead, just like QAC did. Either way, the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard elevator will absolutely require the use of "sparrow strainer" trim tabs just like the QAC LS-1 canard elevator does. The details of mounting the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard should be similar to those of mounting the QAC GU canard, including a horizontally "flat" center section like the GU canard. Some details missing from the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard plans are the BL-19 and BL-91 elevator jigging templates. If one were to build the "fat" 10%-thickened elevators one would need to develop their own versions of these elevator jigging templates; otherwise, the QAC versions would suffice.

I have never seen the alleged "Waddelow canard plans" despite making numerous requests. I have seen the Q-Talk back issues and read Mark Waddelow's contributions there -- I do not recall seeing any mention of a separate "Waddelow canard" or plans that he might have published, although he did offer to send out some additional "details" regarding one of his articles to those interested who might request them of him. I have not seen those "details." I will not wade into the Waddelow canard discussion or the "build it without the spar" discussion except to say that anyone who builds any canard "without a spar" because it's "for a Tri-Q" under the assumption that the spar can be "left out" due to "flight loads being less than landing loads (as a taildragger)" is a FOOL. Any engineer anywhere can pull out a copy of Roark's "Formulas for Stress and Strain" (a standard engineering desk reference book) and easily show that the bending moment at the canard root under 4-g loading in flight is approximately equal to the bending moment at the canard root of the wingtip-mounted landing gear under normal landing conditions. In other words: the spar is just as much needed for flight loads on a Tri-Q as it is for landing loads (and flight loads) on a taildragger Q-200. This persistent, incorrect argument that the spar is "not needed" for a Tri-Q is why I will NEVER* accept an offer of a ride in a Tri-Q.

Were I building a Q-200 from scratch, I think that I would use the Roncz "new canard airfoil" that the Long-EZ uses instead of the LS-1 airfoil....

*[Edit] Now that I have seen the Waddelow canard plans and layup schedule, I retract my "NEVER" declaration. The Waddelow canard appears to be well-designed and the engineering appears to be adequate and conservative.


Bruce Crain
 

I have about 700 hours in my TriQ 200 through the Rockies and turbulence with the Waddelow canard and main wing.  No puckers anywhere on either of them.
Bruce


On Oct 2, 2022, at 9:57 PM, David J. Gall <David@...> wrote:

Regarding the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard I can only say that they were successful. They designed it as a taildragger canard and only converted to tri-gear when they had directional control difficulties as a taildragger, not because of any structural deficiency. The documents in the Files section are all that were published. I would not build from the template file "Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg" (in the Files section) because it has known, measured distortion from the scan process that renders it unacceptable. However, there is enough information in that image and elsewhere that someone could redraw those templates using available NASA data for the airfoil section and the dimensions available on that scanned image. Note that the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard elevators were designed using the then-popular idea (thanks to NASA) that the control surfaces should be thicker than the wing immediately ahead of them; the Weishaar-Doyle elevators are drawn 10% thicker than the wing. The QAC LS-1 canard did not have that feature and seems none the worse off for it. I would suggest that anyone building a Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard eliminate that silliness and just make the elevators the same thickness as the wing ahead, just like QAC did. Either way, the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard elevator will absolutely require the use of "sparrow strainer" trim tabs just like the QAC LS-1 canard elevator does. The details of mounting the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard should be similar to those of mounting the QAC GU canard, including a horizontally "flat" center section like the GU canard. Some details missing from the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard plans are the BL-19 and BL-91 elevator jigging templates. If one were to build the "fat" 10%-thickened elevators one would need to develop their own versions of these elevator jigging templates; otherwise, the QAC versions would suffice.

I have never seen the alleged "Waddelow canard plans" despite making numerous requests. I have seen the Q-Talk back issues and read Mark Waddelow's contributions there -- I do not recall seeing any mention of a separate "Waddelow canard" or plans that he might have published, although he did offer to send out some additional "details" regarding one of his articles to those interested who might request them of him. I have not seen those "details." I will not wade into the Waddelow canard discussion or the "build it without the spar" discussion except to say that anyone who builds any canard "without a spar" because it's "for a Tri-Q" under the assumption that the spar can be "left out" due to "flight loads being less than landing loads (as a taildragger)" is a FOOL. Any engineer anywhere can pull out a copy of Roark's "Formulas for Stress and Strain" (a standard engineering desk reference book) and easily show that the bending moment at the canard root under 4-g loading in flight is approximately equal to the bending moment at the canard root of the wingtip-mounted landing gear under normal landing conditions. In other words: the spar is just as much needed for flight loads on a Tri-Q as it is for landing loads (and flight loads) on a taildragger Q-200. This persistent, incorrect argument that the spar is "not needed" for a Tri-Q is why I will NEVER accept an offer of a ride in a Tri-Q.

Were I building a Q-200 from scratch, I think that I would use the Roncz "new canard airfoil" that the Long-EZ uses instead of the LS-1 airfoil....


Jay Scheevel
 

The Waddlow canard and wing have what amounts to a box spar. I have dropped into the following folder, the pdf document that shows the construction and the stress analysis done by Dave Waddelow.  Folder: https://q-list.groups.io/g/main/files/Waddelow%20Canard%20documentation

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Crain
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 11:51 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

I have about 700 hours in my TriQ 200 through the Rockies and turbulence with the Waddelow canard and main wing.  No puckers anywhere on either of them.

Bruce



On Oct 2, 2022, at 9:57 PM, David J. Gall <David@...> wrote:

Regarding the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard I can only say that they were successful. They designed it as a taildragger canard and only converted to tri-gear when they had directional control difficulties as a taildragger, not because of any structural deficiency. The documents in the Files section are all that were published. I would not build from the template file "Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg" (in the Files section) because it has known, measured distortion from the scan process that renders it unacceptable. However, there is enough information in that image and elsewhere that someone could redraw those templates using available NASA data for the airfoil section and the dimensions available on that scanned image. Note that the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard elevators were designed using the then-popular idea (thanks to NASA) that the control surfaces should be thicker than the wing immediately ahead of them; the Weishaar-Doyle elevators are drawn 10% thicker than the wing. The QAC LS-1 canard did not have that feature and seems none the worse off for it. I would suggest that anyone building a Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard eliminate that silliness and just make the elevators the same thickness as the wing ahead, just like QAC did. Either way, the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard elevator will absolutely require the use of "sparrow strainer" trim tabs just like the QAC LS-1 canard elevator does. The details of mounting the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard should be similar to those of mounting the QAC GU canard, including a horizontally "flat" center section like the GU canard. Some details missing from the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard plans are the BL-19 and BL-91 elevator jigging templates. If one were to build the "fat" 10%-thickened elevators one would need to develop their own versions of these elevator jigging templates; otherwise, the QAC versions would suffice.

I have never seen the alleged "Waddelow canard plans" despite making numerous requests. I have seen the Q-Talk back issues and read Mark Waddelow's contributions there -- I do not recall seeing any mention of a separate "Waddelow canard" or plans that he might have published, although he did offer to send out some additional "details" regarding one of his articles to those interested who might request them of him. I have not seen those "details." I will not wade into the Waddelow canard discussion or the "build it without the spar" discussion except to say that anyone who builds any canard "without a spar" because it's "for a Tri-Q" under the assumption that the spar can be "left out" due to "flight loads being less than landing loads (as a taildragger)" is a FOOL. Any engineer anywhere can pull out a copy of Roark's "Formulas for Stress and Strain" (a standard engineering desk reference book) and easily show that the bending moment at the canard root under 4-g loading in flight is approximately equal to the bending moment at the canard root of the wingtip-mounted landing gear under normal landing conditions. In other words: the spar is just as much needed for flight loads on a Tri-Q as it is for landing loads (and flight loads) on a taildragger Q-200. This persistent, incorrect argument that the spar is "not needed" for a Tri-Q is why I will NEVER accept an offer of a ride in a Tri-Q.

Were I building a Q-200 from scratch, I think that I would use the Roncz "new canard airfoil" that the Long-EZ uses instead of the LS-1 airfoil....


Sam Hoskins
 

Thank you very much David. I am always interested to get your analysis and input.  With your permission, I would like to attach your post your first paragraph to the Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 canard folder for anyone that someday might want to take it on.

Sam


Ben Wilson
 

Hi Jay, Bruce, David:

Need to lay out final stuff.

Email list/files are great.

Can’t find coordinates for Roncz airfoil for Q2.

Where else should I look?

Ben

 

 

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 12:12 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

The Waddlow canard and wing have what amounts to a box spar. I have dropped into the following folder, the pdf document that shows the construction and the stress analysis done by Dave Waddelow.  Folder: https://q-list.groups.io/g/main/files/Waddelow%20Canard%20documentation

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Crain
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 11:51 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

I have about 700 hours in my TriQ 200 through the Rockies and turbulence with the Waddelow canard and main wing.  No puckers anywhere on either of them.

Bruce

On Oct 2, 2022, at 9:57 PM, David J. Gall <David@...> wrote:
Were I building a Q-200 from scratch, I think that I would use the Roncz "new canard airfoil" that the Long-EZ uses instead of the LS-1 airfoil....


Jay Scheevel
 

Unfortunately, Roncz designed and laid that canard design out for only the Long-EZ (and possibly other EZ variants). To my knowledge, no one has done one for the Q2, I think David was speaking “aspirationally”, but maybe he will correct me.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 1:58 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

Hi Jay, Bruce, David:

Need to lay out final stuff.

Email list/files are great.

Can’t find coordinates for Roncz airfoil for Q2.

Where else should I look?

Ben

 

 

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 12:12 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

The Waddlow canard and wing have what amounts to a box spar. I have dropped into the following folder, the pdf document that shows the construction and the stress analysis done by Dave Waddelow.  Folder: https://q-list.groups.io/g/main/files/Waddelow%20Canard%20documentation

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Crain
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 11:51 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

I have about 700 hours in my TriQ 200 through the Rockies and turbulence with the Waddelow canard and main wing.  No puckers anywhere on either of them.

Bruce

On Oct 2, 2022, at 9:57 PM, David J. Gall <David@...> wrote:
Were I building a Q-200 from scratch, I think that I would use the Roncz "new canard airfoil" that the Long-EZ uses instead of the LS-1 airfoil....


Jay Scheevel
 

If you want to be the first. Here is the airfoil coordinate data for the Roncz 1145MS airfoil, which is what I assume was used for the Long-EZ canard (new canard). David can correct me if I am wrong.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 1:58 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

Hi Jay, Bruce, David:

Need to lay out final stuff.

Email list/files are great.

Can’t find coordinates for Roncz airfoil for Q2.

Where else should I look?

Ben

 

 

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 12:12 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

The Waddlow canard and wing have what amounts to a box spar. I have dropped into the following folder, the pdf document that shows the construction and the stress analysis done by Dave Waddelow.  Folder: https://q-list.groups.io/g/main/files/Waddelow%20Canard%20documentation

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Crain
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 11:51 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

I have about 700 hours in my TriQ 200 through the Rockies and turbulence with the Waddelow canard and main wing.  No puckers anywhere on either of them.

Bruce

On Oct 2, 2022, at 9:57 PM, David J. Gall <David@...> wrote:
Were I building a Q-200 from scratch, I think that I would use the Roncz "new canard airfoil" that the Long-EZ uses instead of the LS-1 airfoil....


Frankenbird Vern
 

 You are correct,, but you know that Roncz fella ain't got no degree.  🙂

 Vern...going bonkers at the Lazy B again.   

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 3:38 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch
 

If you want to be the first. Here is the airfoil coordinate data for the Roncz 1145MS airfoil, which is what I assume was used for the Long-EZ canard (new canard). David can correct me if I am wrong.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 1:58 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

Hi Jay, Bruce, David:

Need to lay out final stuff.

Email list/files are great.

Can’t find coordinates for Roncz airfoil for Q2.

Where else should I look?

Ben

 

 

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 12:12 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

The Waddlow canard and wing have what amounts to a box spar. I have dropped into the following folder, the pdf document that shows the construction and the stress analysis done by Dave Waddelow.  Folder: https://q-list.groups.io/g/main/files/Waddelow%20Canard%20documentation

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Crain
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 11:51 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Hi! I'm a new member and want to build a Q-200... probably from scratch

 

I have about 700 hours in my TriQ 200 through the Rockies and turbulence with the Waddelow canard and main wing.  No puckers anywhere on either of them.

Bruce

On Oct 2, 2022, at 9:57 PM, David J. Gall <David@...> wrote:
Were I building a Q-200 from scratch, I think that I would use the Roncz "new canard airfoil" that the Long-EZ uses instead of the LS-1 airfoil....